I too bought the D800 to shoot video and capture audio. I shot my first interview this week and came home with the hiss. I have been testing assorted work around but why should I need a work around when I just paid 3,000 for a camera! Canon here I come.

I totally understand your frustration with Nikon. It's unfortunate that we have to find a work around for this issue considering the caliber of the camera. My suggestion is by far the least expensive work around and has allowed me to shoot "hiss free" without having to capture audio separately. You're looking at a $125 fix. When I posed the issue to Nikon at PDN in New York their response was "It's a still camera first and foremost that also shoots great video. Any professional shooting knows the importance of always capturing audio separately." I wasn't too pleased with the response.

Let me know if you want me to send you some images of my set up, though I'm sure you're all good. Good luck.

The sound hiss is a big issue and I bought the camera at vast expense to avoid recording sound separately so I can do solo jobs. I feel cheated and misinformed by Nikon. Is there a less complicated way to eliminate the hiss from an otherwise great camera?

I've had the same issue with my D800 but found a work around which has delivered successful results. I have a Rodes directional mic plugged into an H1 audio recorder, then the H1 going out, into the D800. The gain on the Rodes mic is set to "0", the H1 is set to max input volume and the D800 is set to a volume lever of 3. I have a double cold-shoe splitter on top of the D800 which holds the mic and H1. The great thing is that not only does this solve the hiss problem COMPLETELY, i also have volume control on the H1 while shooting. A feature unavailable on the D800.

What the hell? I'm paying three thousand dollars for a DSLR and Nikon makes a camera with reverse polarity thus causing audio hiss. I'm far from a troll, and love my Nikon camera; but these types of difficulties warrant the use of the D800 out in the field pretty useless. I am a photographer for my college's newspaper. We're expanding the multimedia department to include onsite interviews and the like. If the D800 has an audio hiss (given that we have Sennheiser wireless lavalier microphones already), and it will be difficult to receive a replacement with such high demand, what are we, as the consumer, supposed to do?

I'm having the same problem. I'm using a Pearstone lavalier plugged directly in to the cam, and have adjusted the gain up and down with the noise being an issue at all levels. I've had good luck using the Rode Video Mic Pro with the +20db setting. But would love to get a solution for using my lav directly into the D800 body.

Hi there, just wondered if anyone else is having problems with their D800 audio?

The sound is fine using the built-in camera mic (although obviously poor quality) but as soon as I plug in any external mic I get really noticeable background hiss. I've tried the ME-1, a Sennheiser radio mic, a wired lavalier mic but they all behave the same - any sound monitored and recorded has a strong background noise that renders it unusable.

I've tried changing the input levels from auto to manual, from low to high, headphone levels from low to high, but the hiss is always there. Recording the same audio with my Zoom HN4 shows no problems at all.

Am I missing something obvious? Or has the D800 a really bad audio circuit with plug-in mics?

Just viewed the Kelby Training on the Nikon D7000. It is very basic, even the newbie that I am did not learn anything (ok, maybe a couple). And the host looks like he on a coffee trip and can't stand in place or keep quiet for a second.

I would still suggest for the very beginner as a starter point and a way to visually understand the owner's manual content in its most basic form.

To learn and reference camera bodies I really like Darrell Young's books and almost every book by the publisher Rockynook. All of his books are laid out well with all the info you need in one spot instead of hunting across multiple chapters. The index is concise and gets me right to what I'm looking for. For me it basically replaces my user manual 95% of the time.

The books on the bodies seem to be always named "Mastering the Nikon XXXX" by Darrell Young. Best $40 accessory I have bought in a long time.

Mike: I only bring that up because I've talked to people who have that attitude, and it baffles me. If I thought that of your photography (which, incidentally, I don't; what I've seen of your stuff, and most of the rest of the people who post here, shows a lot of thought given to composition, regardless of what went into post), I'd have mentioned you by name. :)

First, a disclaimer: like NSX, I'm not all that good at post. Also, as a relative novice, my priority has been weighted more toward learning solid composition than toward learning postproduction.

My thinking on this, for what it's worth, is that post can be really useful, but shouldn't be a substitute for carefully taking the photo in the first place. It can be great for making small fixes, and even for doing interesting artistic stuff with your pictures, but if you're taking half-assed shots with the attitude that you'll just fix 'em later, you're doing it wrong. So I'm not against PS, GIMP, or anything else that can enhance the process. But the point is, it's just that -- an enhancement, and not a substitute for mindful shooting.

Here's a view from a guy who has spent a lot of time in a dark dark room and in a digital dark room.

You can look at it that it is a place to convert your work to something to see as quickly as possible, or you can look at it as something to take your work to level that your work wasn't at when you originally snapped it.

Digital darkroom mastery can salvage marginal work or make good work terrific work.

Everyone would like to take great shots the first time (me included), but I would also like to be able to punch it up in the dark room (in this case, Photoshop), and I fortunately have the tools.

I agree with broxibear that Photoshop is a digital darkroom, and it even goes further in some ways. But retouching of photos has been happening for a long time, and I don't think there's a hard line between retouching and illustration.

Mathew Brady, for example, is considered one of the greatest American portrait photographers, but routinely retouched photos, which you can see by comparing his originals with prints given to clients. Then Norman Rockwell is considered one of the greatest American illustrators, but he took pains to photograph his scenes/models extensively before filling in the gaps with his paintbrush. I think both of those artists would have loved to have photoshop. I don't think that if you don't like photoshop you're any less of a photographer. People will always have their preferences.

To your question, lauzobe, about which is more important, I think only you can answer that for yourself. And it will likely take a lot of time and practice to know (such a satisfying answer, isn't it?).

One more thing. Do you put less, equal too, or more value into the actual picture taking or the photoshoping, or do they truly make only one.

Sincere thanks from a really green guy.

Oh yeah, you're going to find lots of views on this.

I personally hate Photoshop/editing and really don't do it because I can't be bothered to learn it. I only shoot for myself so it really isn't a big deal. But I like the picture taking part of only really. I don't enjoy being behind a computer to touch up photos.